England riots: World’s scorn conceals some home truths

It's at moments like this that we realise quite how unpopular Britain is around the world. But we shouldn't let that blind ourselves to genuine, useful criticism.

Forget the football hooligans, or our closeness to the United States, or any of the other reasons the global community has had to wrinkle their noses whenever the British are mentioned.

Now the world's leaders and the press amplifying their views have a whole new reason to pour scorn on the UK. Last week's violence have prompted a mass outbreak of schadenfreude.

We spend so much time wringing our hands about the terrible events taking place in other parts of the world, maybe we shouldn't be so surprised when the tables are turned.

It's the countries Britain is most critical of - China, Russia and Iran - which are the most critical in response.

You'd expect it from Iran, whose state-run Irna news agency has published story after story revelling in the disorder.

Whether raising concerns that UK Muslims could come under attack from the far-right, or quoting a 'peace campaigner' comparing the riots with Britain's wars in Afghanistan and Libya, the tone has been unmistakable.

Iran's press has been outperformed by its politicians, who have portrayed the riots as legitimate protest and sought to raise the violence at the United Nations.

Its Fars news agency reported: Iranian Foreign Ministry Spokesman Ramin Mehman-Parast urged the British police to exercise restraint against protesters... he asked the British government to start dialogue with the protesters and to listen to their demands in order to calm the situation down."

You get the idea.

You might not expect such criticism from countries Britain views as invaluable trading partners. Yet the old differences between Russia and the UK are becoming painfully clear.

"A crowd of several hundreds of young men plunged the capital of one of the most powerful Western countries into chaos," Pravda's Sergei Balmasov wrote.

"It does not look possible that British politicians will be able to solve this problem with the help of democratic methods. Britain has fallen a victim to the cult of tolerance that has been taken to absurdity."

One Russian senator, the head of the upper house's international affairs committee, was quoted as saying by the RIA Novosti news agency that the death of multicultural society and the economic crisis were to blame.

"I think the events occurring in the English cities have at least two reasons. One is fundamental: it's the death of multiculturalism, a eulogy which the heads of Germany, France and Great Britain have recently delivered," Mikhail Margelov said.

"The value of tolerance, or in other words the value of difference, has been accepted neither by 'indigenous' Europeans nor by immigrants. The two sides merely tolerate each other. And patience is the kind of thing that runs out from time to time."

Meanwhile Chinese writers have blamed the riots on broader problems with European society including high welfare payments, "excessive personal liberties" and an increase in immigration.

"In good times, the flaws in this social model are concealed. But when prosperity fails, the problems emerge: xenophobia, extremism, and such -- if they aren't handled well, sudden violence can break out," the Diplomat translated an article published in the Guangming Daily, by Xiao Qian, as saying.

"To take these riots as an example, the British media have reported that people are angry with the European Union, dissatisfied that irresponsible consumption in southern Europe has created a financial crisis, unhappy with cutbacks in public expenditure, worried about the inefficiency of the police and the crime rate - this is what the riots reflect."

Another country with which Britain has a long history has been very conscious of Britain's own past. "Welcome to the post-modern riot," began an editorial in the Hindustan Times, called 'Anarchy in the UK'.

It mentioned the Peterloo massacre and the crushing of the Yorkshire mining unions, but struggled to work out the "curious agenda of the rioters".

"While they were drawn from the underclass, mostly working class whites and blacks, they had no political agenda," the newspaper said.

"Their definition of inclusivity was access to branded consumer products ranging from gaming machines to high-end footware. Banks and ministries, icons of capitalism and government, were largely ignored."

No real answers are offered, but then this reflects a general head-scratching as other countries try to work out why the disorder took place.

"As London and other cities in the nation recover, officials and the public may be left wondering how to prevent such rioting in the first place," as Lauren Friedman puts it in the thoroughly technical Scientific American magazine.

"A key misunderstanding, however, seems to pervade popular thinking: that mobs are irrational and are driven to violence by a few bad apples," she notes.

"In fact, the scientific evidence shows that individuals in mobs do behave rationally, although not always wisely. The findings suggest that understanding the logic behind mob behaviour may offer ways to short-circuit riots before they start."

Such empirical approaches are lacking across much of the country. The Daily Monitor, a Ugandan newspaper, looks for a deeper breakdown of British society for the reasons.

"The moral guidance that used to be dispensed by the churches and schools is long gone," Muniini Mulera points out.

"Round-the-clock television, the Internet and video games are the new sources of moral guidance. And what is on offer through such media is not intellectually healthy. A dumbed down society is emerging, one which glorifies drugs, violence and other manifestations of anti-social conduct."

The article goes on to point out that the 'underclass' as described by some commentators in Britain are much wealthier than their counterparts in Africa.

"Poor people do not drive cars or carry cell phones or spend endless hours on social networks like Twitter and Facebook, as the truly deprived citizens of the world will tell you," Mulera added.

"The British looters were probably card-carrying members of an international fraternity that labours under the illusion of entitlement to wealth and comfort without effort. These are able-bodied people who hunger after leisure and ownership of digital toys, but prefer to skip the mandatory step of hard work and sacrifice that the majority of us must take to realise our dreams."

Those sentiments are echoed by the attitudes of many South Africans, according to CNN's correspondent in Johannesburg, Robyn Curnow.

"Some Africans are asking why more people aren't debating whether England can pull off the world's oldest sports tournament," she wrote.

"Africans are generally ultra-sensitive to comparisons between themselves and Westerners, particularly old colonial bosses. This time around the debate is less rooted in reality - no one really suggests that London is too dangerous to host the Olympics - but in the perceptions that many Africans believe still exist.

"After all, they say, the streets are burning! The mobs are in control! The politicians are on the beach! Call in the army! Is there a Plan B for the Olympics, some ask jokingly? How about South Africa?"

Britain has had a prominent place on the world stage for centuries, now. When it experiences trouble at home, it's no surprise the countries it has dealt with put their high hats on. From old colonies, to the poorer nations, to trading partners uncomfortable with the UK's criticisms of its human rights record: all now have something to say against the country whose poor destroyed their communities.

Some of their criticism is outrageous, but some contains more than a ring of truth. Now the UK must decide which of these comments to dismiss with a shrug of the shoulders, and which - if any - to take on board.